The case for revolution

Opening for the proposition, James Probert, Director of Development at Historic Houses, argued that the charity sector is structurally incapable of meeting contemporary challenges unless it makes a decisive break with its inherited models.

In his framing, evolution is not a safe or neutral path but a constrained process that “blindly iterates with what it’s got”, adapting slowly while deeper problems remain untouched. At a moment of accelerating social and technological change, he warned, this caution risks locking the sector into forms that no longer serve either beneficiaries or the public.

Probert structured his case around central three arguments., the first of which was governance. He argued many charities still operate according to assumptions formed in an era of elite patronage, when wealthy donors also had the leisure to oversee institutions. Today, he suggested, this legacy produces weak leadership and poor accountability.

Unpaid trusteeship, the exclusion of paid executives from boards, and the lack of mandated beneficiary representation all reflect a system that prioritises tradition over effectiveness. The cost of this conservatism is not simply inefficiency but lost impact. As he put it, “the missed opportunity is what really matters here”.

His second argument addressed the definition of charity itself. Probert questioned why charitable status continues to rest on historical categories of purpose that have changed little since the early modern period. In the public imagination, he argued, a charity is an effort to solve an urgent problem, not to preserve an abstract category. He suggested that status, tax relief and public trust should be tied to demonstrable problem solving, rather than to inherited purposes that may no longer reflect social priorities.

“If the charity sector does not embrace change now, it will be swamped by it, and there won’t be a charity sector to talk about in a few years’ time.”

The third strand of his argument focused on lifecycle. Probert challenged the assumption that charities should exist in perpetuity, arguing instead for time limited, mission focused organisations. Institutions that are designed to last forever, he suggested, tend to accumulate duplication and inertia. This creates what he called “zombie charities”, organisations that cling to relevance and reserves while new ideas struggle to secure funding.

Throughout his speech, Probert emphasised that the true cost of incrementalism is largely invisible. “The missions we’re not addressing, the resources we don’t know are being squatted on, the ideas that are not being invested in” all represent failures that never appear on balance sheets.

Technological change, particularly in areas such as artificial intelligence, makes delay especially dangerous. If the sector does not set its own direction, he warned, it will be shaped by external forces instead. His conclusion was deliberately stark: “If the charity sector does not embrace change now, it will be swamped by it, and there won’t be a charity sector to talk about in a few years’ time.”